• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The General Hillier Years. The Merged Superthread

George Wallace said:
This makes the appointment sound like Political Patronage........which further erodes the CF.

How else should the CDS be chosen?

Seniority is a bad thing.

An election is silly.

As much as we may not like the current leadership in Parliament doesn't mean that the Executive Branch (Cabinet and the PMO) shouldn't have and maintain important responsibilites that maintain a healthy level of civil-military relations (ie: promoting the most senior military officials).
 
Too true Infanteer.  I am sure that the PM takes the recommendations of the outgoing CDS and the MND very seriously when considering which candidate to choose. 
 
Does anyone suppose that General Hillier may decide to quote extensively from the Canadian Army Forum (Army.ca) After all the media certainly seem to be...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050114.whillier0114/BNStory/Front/

Picking Lieutenant-General Hillier signals that Mr. Martin is serious about reshaping Canada's overstretched military. The army officer has been outspoken about the need to make Canada's modest military capacity more mobile and modern, a strong hint that the ongoing defence-policy review will focus on international expeditionary forces, likely by downgrading the navy and air force.

That was an exert from an article in the Globe and Mail today!

 
Hell, I'm crossing my fingers that more writers start reading this board.  There is a wealth of knowledge here that if they could desseminate to the general public would be very worthwhile.




Matthew.    :salute:
 
My one question on this is, with Gen Henault going to NATO, are we going to have 2 four leaf generals?
 
Big Foot said:
My one question on this is, with Gen Henault going to NATO, are we going to have 2 four leaf generals?

Unfortunately, Yes.
Canada, as the nation supplying the new Chairman of the NATO military committee, is Responsible for All Costs associated with the supplied representative.
Lets just hope that the Libs pony up the additional funding required? :-\
Although, personally, in view of their past actions, they will likely make the CF provide the requisite funding out of DND's own hide - as seen with prior overseas deployments. >:(
:cdn:
 
I can't see how focusing on international expeditionary forces means downgrading Naval and Air assets.  Is the Army just going to paddle a canoe to the threat area?
 
Infanteer said:
I can't see how focusing on international expeditionary forces means downgrading Naval and Air assets.   Is the Army just going to paddle a canoe to the threat area?

Yes.   However, we're not anticipating those canoes for 10 years as we have to ensure that production is spread equally amongst the provinces in Liberal ridings with an appropriate native Canadian contribution.   At that point the Liberal Government (still in power) will deploy them only with a formal invitation.



Matthew.     ;D
 
Quote
Picking Lieutenant-General Hillier signals that Mr. Martin is serious about reshaping Canada's overstretched military. The army officer has been outspoken about the need to make Canada's modest military capacity more mobile and modern, a strong hint that the ongoing defence-policy review will focus on international expeditionary forces, likely by downgrading the navy and air force.


And is it any wonder the Air Force and Navy are dreading Lt Gen Hillier getting the position of CDS? I can see a lot of friction between the 3 elements now.
 
Life is a bitch boys.

And IIRC we will have 3 four leafs now - the LO in Washington has traditionally been a ful Gen.


In todays day and age we don thave hte budget for blue water Navy nor High Speed Air - look at what those elements have been able to provide recently - AirForce - a useless transport fleet and a insignificant Air Superiority Fighter.  Navy - interdiction missions of questionable value - a uselss submarine that cannot patrol our Arctic.

While I woudl love to have a robust Force constint of cruisers, nuke boats and a Tarawa type assault ship - we dont have the budget.

I'd much rather have well equipped soliders with great individual skill sets that can go and do with the best of them.

We have to be a niche army - if not we will just simply suck at everything, do to budget and equiptment shortfalls.
 
I wonder how supportive you would be of an Air Force General CDS or an Naval Admiral CDS if the army was seen as "questionable value".
 
Dude - we've been there for the last few years...

Ask the LCMM Small Arms why the fleet is "rusting out" - not enough money for maitenance - as such we have dangerously unserviceable weapons going on tour...
 
It is premature to speculate what he will do. I hope he wil look after the entire CF and not just the Army. (although I admit I am not optimistic about that)

Going for a niche role military IMO won't work as we will always have to rely on someone else to do something we should be doing for ourselves.
 
As someone trying to get into the Navy, I'm getting worried by Lt-Gen Hillier's views on the Air and Maritime Commands.

We need a complete fighting force, in my opinion. By that I mean a highly deployable Land element, with well-trained soldiers with good equipment (basically, the soldiers we have now, with better equipment), an Air element that can transport troops and/or equipment, and enough fighters to protect the transports if they have to go in an hostile environment, and finally a Naval element that can ferry troops, interdict areas (as we have been doing around Iraq), provide defense for friendly battlegroups (like we've been doing with US BGs).

Basically, we need to be a small, highly capable force. Think USMC but smaller, and with boats. Actually, I think the Marines are probably the best model we'd have. They have an air force, a land force (duh) and have the Navy to depend on.

Of course, I agree that most of what we've been doing lately is focused on land warfare (oops, non-PC slip here) but we've also been keeping a naval presence around the world.

Another problem that will arise in the next few years (decades, at max) is keeping our sovereignty in the Arctic. There have been reports of foreign war vessels in our territorial waters, and even foreign operatives near our land. If we don't do something we'll lose one of the things that make us such a great country: our massive land up north. We need at least a few ships to send up there to prevent other nations from violating our sovereignty.

Anyways, here's to hoping Hillier won't mess everything up worse than it already is...
 
In todays day and age we don thave hte budget for blue water Navy nor High Speed Air - look at what those elements have been able to provide recently - AirForce - a useless transport fleet and a insignificant Air Superiority Fighter.   Navy - interdiction missions of questionable value - a uselss submarine that cannot patrol our Arctic

KevinB-

Thank-you for the insightful Defence of Canada analysis.   I do respect your opinion on infantry and army matters, but the statement you made above really leads me to believe that you need to do a bit of research before you go wading into the Navy and Air Force arenas.

Feel free to PM me if you wish to know what the real issues with our Navy and Air Force are.   I am familiar with the subject matter...
 
KevinB said:
...interdiction missions of questionable value


Don't think of what we do, but why we do it. Thank bigger then just the military, remember at the end of the day we are a just a diplomatic tool. (Let's hope they use us well.)

Many of our missions may be of questionable *military* value. I will not offer an opinion on this. But they can be really valuable politically. The CF provides a way for the govt of the day to build up political currency by going on missions alongside allies and the UN. Even if we think it's stupid, we may be earning brownie points we can cash in as a country.

That's my .02, out.
 
SeaKingTacco,

I think you misunderstood me.  I would love to have a fleet and credible airforce.

However at this point in time the ARMY's small arms are gettign worn out - we have had several dangerous failure s from guns that are above their service life - in one case while I was in Afghan a soldier was shot as a result - thankfully in the foot.  Our "brandNew" LAVIII fleet is 50% N/S due to parts - some of these are not working right when they come off the train from GM.

IF we cannot have a credible army equipped and trained properly, then we dont need the Herc to fly us anywhere, nor a Naval RORO ship for our equiptment.

Secondly while I know that Navy has a high rate of deployment (and that is a given as part of a blue water Navy) what have the Airforce done?
Griffon - sorry it sucks unless you want to move one or two troops
CC130 - If we get the one or two workable ones airborne...
CC150 Polaris - Airbus's are not exactly STOL that you can launch an assault out of.
CF18 Hornet - now rusting out with not clear replacment.



The Forces is in dire shape - but IMHO the boots on the ground are the ones in the greatest need of kit.

And I'd rather work as part of a US/UK coaltion than any of our rental army NATO partners
 


 
AS promised here is the message sent to all DND/CF MEMBERS from the old CDS Gen. Ray Henault

NRâ “05.005 - January 14, 2005



OTTAWA â “ As you are aware, my time remaining as CDS is very short. As announced today by the Prime Minister, LGen (Gen) Rick Hillier will assume the responsibilities of CDS effective 4 Feb, as I leave to initiate my transition to the position of Chairman of NATO's Military Committee.
It has been my distinct honour to serve as the CDS for nearly four years, with the unwavering support of my wife, Loraine, and all the other members of my family. In fact, this has been the greatest privilege of my career.

The Canadian Forces has accomplished much during those years â “ largely due to the tremendous dedication and effort of all CF members. My three CDS Annual Reports are aptly titled to capture the essence of those accomplishments: for 2001-2002, â Å“A t a Crossroadsâ ? ; for 2002-2003, â Å“A Time for Transformationâ ? ; and for 2003-2004, â Å“ Making Choicesâ ? .

We have already begun the transformation process, made great advances on quality of life issues, enhanced our medical, educational and professional development processes, broken the back of a 12-year CF grievance backlog and developed a streamlined grievance process which will reduce turnaround times to one year by December 2005.

We've also led the Government's 3D approach, particularly in Afghanistan, procured new or updated equipment including: Cormorant search and rescue helicopters; Victoria class submarines; G-wagons; and the tactical uninhabited aerial vehicles. We're also continuing with significant upgrades to the CF-18, the Aurora, and a wide range of land force and naval equipments, and we have initiated the process to procure the new Maritime Helicopter, the Mobile Gun System and later, the Joint Support Ship.

We've met, and continue to meet, the security challenges presented to us since sep 11, 2001, all the while managing a high operational tempo with multiple operations including OPS PALLADIUM, HALO, APOLLO and ATHENA, and most recently, OP STRUCTURE in Sri Lanka.

This has led to new and enhanced partnerships with other Government departments and security agencies here at home and abroad, and important contributions with domestic and coalition partners to the ongoing Campaign Against Terrorism. And as part of that, we have deployed our joint air, land, and naval forces into operations across the full spectrum of conflict, including our deployment into combat in Afghanistan in 2002 â “ the first time Canadian land forces were deployed for combat since Korea and where JTF-2, our special operations forces, went into combat for the first time.

I wish to offer my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to all members of the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence, and our associated agencies for all that we have achieved during my time as CDS. I never cease to be amazed by your dedication, motivation, innovation and professionalism. Time and time again you have risen to the challenges of the demands placed on you and have done so in a manner that reflects superbly on our nation, the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence, and on you as individuals.

I know that your determination to ensure mission success and to do so in superb fashion is precisely what LGen (Gen) Hillier can count on from all members as he assumes leadership of this truly outstanding organization.

I look forward to continuing to work with many of you in my upcoming capacity as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee .

Again, many thanks to you and your families for your unconditional support to me throughout my time as CDS, and continued best success as the Canadian Forces enters another dynamic period in its history. The future is indeed bright.
 
Infanteer said:
How else should the CDS be chosen?

Seniority is a bad thing.

An election is silly.

As much as we may not like the current leadership in Parliament doesn't mean that the Executive Branch (Cabinet and the PMO) shouldn't have and maintain important responsibilites that maintain a healthy level of civil-military relations (ie: promoting the most senior military officials).

In the election did the PM not promise that all appointments would go in front of a bard to make sure that they would be the best person for the job?

I think that may have been a factor in the selection.   You take someone who may do a good job and is respected by the forces and make him their boss as opposed to someone whose turn it is at the desert table.   This is not to say the VCDS may not have been a good choice just it may not have looked as good going through the board. Tougher this way for the Conservatives and NDP to say it was Patronage instead of trying to fix the problem.

Not that i am defending the government, but is it not a possibility.

I know they are years late on almost all their promises for new kit new personal and the list goes on and on.

As for reduciton of the Navy and Air Force to strenghten the army don't know if i agree with that.  

Kevinb

I think it would be a mistake to reduce the ranks of the Navy and Air Force it is not their fault the equipment is bad.   The previous governments did not want to buy good stuff so they bought stuff that would make due.  

thats my two cents.
 
Kirkhill said:
Just a point on the public and kit.

I am not convinced the public is against the Forces having the kit. The soft-power types (NDP, Axworthy, Ploughshares, Polaris and up until recently I would have included all the Canadian media) are certainly against it and very loud in saying so but I believe that the average Canadian believes that we have tanks, howitzers, helicopters, destroyers, subs and fighters and that we should have them.   The pity of it is they believe the stuff that you have on issue all works and that you could, under the necessary and commonly agreed circumstances, use them "alongside the best".

The problem the public has is two fold - failure to realize just how clapped out a lot of the kit is and sticker shock at the bill necessary to replace it, let alone upgrade it.   That is where the failure in political leadership occurs. And as long as PM can't make a decision on anything because he is trying to stay on side between the "softies" and the "others - realists?", a faction that I actually think he might be predisposed towards, then no leadership will occur and, as tomahawk6 suggests, triage will continue to be necessary.

Good Point!

On the other hand maybe we will all be shocked and awed and money will flow into the coffers.
 
Back
Top